COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 



State Board of Education 



Uniforni Taxation for School Purposes 



BY 

Hon. WILLIAM LAUDER 

Member of the State Board of Education 



1914 



HARRISBURG, PA.: 

WM. STANLEY RAY, STATE PRINTER 

1914 



COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 



State Board of Education 



Uniform Taxation for Scliool Purposes 



BY 

Hon. WILLIAM LAUDER 

Member of the State Board of Education 



1914 



HARRISBURG, PA.: 

WM. STANLEY RAY, STATE PRINTER 

1914 









% OF 0. 
WAY 4 BH 



(2) 



.<^ 



lu the apparent indifference and seeming opposition to edu- 
cational progress in this State there are not the elements of 
hostility so prevalent a few years ago. Under the influence 
of the national and state governments there has been a grow- 
ing perception, by the people, of the value of education and 
a great desire to obtain it. 

What remains is not antagonistic but economic. 

It may be said that the people have passed from indifference 
to the opening stages of impatience to obtain what they feel 
is for their comfort and happiness in life and for the develop- 
ment of wealth for themselves and for the State. 

We can no longer place the blame upon the people; they 
want larger educational opportunities for their children but 
cannot obtain them. It has become almost entirely a question 
of finance. The same proposition is before us to-day in the busi- 
ness world. The great steel and oil companies spend fortunes 
on developing and systematizing economical details because 
they know it will pay. Smaller companies and individuals, tho 
they have the same knowledge, cannot do so for want of capi- 
tal. The result is a foregone conclusion, the one without cash 
is driven to the wall by what he calls "Trust." 

The poor farmer from objective teaching by colleges and rail- 
roads and the current literature of the day is fully aware 
that, if he could obtain better stock, economical equipment, 
and what is necessary for the proper treatment of the soil, 
he could make money; but where is it to come from? Few of us 
living in towns and cities with fixed incomes, even if it is only 
a laborer's wage, realize the difficulties surrounding a farmer's 
life who is dependent upon the season for the support of him- 
self and family. The season may be good or bad ; but in either 
case his taxes are the same. 

Broadly speaking, the present system of education in this 
State, even with the liberal appropriation of |7,500,000 an- 
nually on the part of the Commonwealth, takes the last dollar 
from the people of the rural districts who more than in any 
other section need the new education of learning to do things 

(3) 



scientifically in order to keep the boy from leaving the farm 
and drifting to the congested and unhealthy life of the city. 

It is one thing for us to know ''it will pay in the end" bui 
another to find the means to accomplish it. 

The people have been educated to know these things are pos- 
sible — they want them. How are they to be obtained? 

If we had the forty years Germany has had in vocational 
training, the people might be willing to make sacrifices for a 
fuller and broader education. Like the Children of Israel, they 
have heard the reports of the spies sent out, that the promised 
land is flowing with milk and honey, but there are walled 
cities and giants in the land, and, like the Israelites, they 
lack the courage to possess the land. 

The present attitude of the people is similar to what an 
engineer meets with when his engine is stuck on the center. 
Too many things in life are taken for granted. We boast of a 
great appropriation for educational purposes, we look at gen- 
eral averages and take for granted that the cost of education 
is low. 

The statement that the cost of education is burdensome in 
the rural districts is, I think, borne out by the table I have 
made from the last report of the Superintendent of Public In- 
struction. 

There are 2534 school districts in the State in which it ap- 
pears that there are — 



6 


districts 


No 


taxation, 


1 




1 


Mill 


11 




1 


a 


11 




n 


u 


18 




^ 


11 


3 




1.75 


(I 


32 




2.00 


a 


5 




2.25 


a 


58 




2.50 


u 


8 




2.75 


a 


141 




3.00 


u 



291 



2128 



12 


districts 


3.20 to 3.33 incl, 


93 




u 


3.50 to 3.95 


224 




a 


4.00 Mill 


4 




i( 


4.25 " 


93 




u 


4.50 " 


2 




u 


4.75 " 


2 




a 


4.80 '' 


234 


64 


u 


5.00 


6' 


• 


61 




a 


5.50 5.75 


230 




a 


6.00 


7 




a 


6.25 6.45 


42 




a 


6.50 6.75 


239 




u 


7.00—7.40 


40 




u 


7.50—7.90 


213 




a 


8.00—8.33 


16 




a 


8.50—8.75 


101 




a 


9.00—9.25 


15 




a 


9.50—9.75 


209 


173 


a 


10.00 


1 




2 




a 


10.50 


67 




a 


11.00 


1 




a 


11.. 50 


84 




u 


12.00 


1 




a 


12.50 


139 


94 


u 


13.00 


2 




294 








1 




a 


13.50 


11 




li 


14.00 


2 




a 


14.50 


33 




a 


15.50—15.75 


11 




li 


16.00 


8 




i( 


17.00 


10 




u 


18.00 



19 . 00 
20.00 
22.00 
23.00 
24.00 
406 8 '' 25.00 



2534 



3 


districts 


16 




1 




5 




3 




8 





This shows that 291 districts have a tax of 3 mills and less 
004 " 3.50 to 5.00 mills 

1173 " 5.75 to 10.00 " 

460 " 10.50 to 25.00 " 

The average rate of school tax throughovit the State for 
year 1911 — 12, excepting Philadelphia, was 7.43. 

It must be adniitted that positive deductions or comparisons 
cannot be made from the rates of millage. It is either too high 
or too low, due to the method of valuation employed by the 
county or ELECTIVE assessor who is frequently afraid or 
incompetent to perform the duties of his office. It does, how- 
ever, give us an insight to the rural taxpayers' point of view. 

The districts having such high rates are not confined to any 
locality or county but exist in every county in the State. 

The following table will show the variations in each county. 



County . 
Adams, 


Districts . 
34 


4.11 


Highest. 

8.5 


Lowest. 
1.50 


Allegheny, 


118 


4.82 


12. 


.75 


Armstrong, 


45 


9.06 


15. 


4.00 


Beaver, 


53 


6.26 


14. 


3.00 


Bedford, 


39 


9.51 


20. 


5.00 


Berks, 


61 


4.62 


11. 


2.50 


Blair, 


27 


7.03 


11. 


4.00 


Bradford, 


54 


8.16 


23. 


5.00 


Bucks, 


49 


4.67 


8.75 


2.. 50 


Butler, 


56 


6.94 


13.00 


3.00 


Cambria, 


61 


10.05 


24.00 


5.00 


Cameron, 


8 


8.00 


12.00 


5.00 


Carbon, 


24 


5.66 


13.00 


3.80 


Chester, 


74 


4.65 


9.75 


2.. 50 


Clarion, 


36 


8.50 


16.00 


2.50 


Clearfield, 


49 


10.12 


20.00 


5.00 


Clinton, 


29 


6.79 


13.00 


1.50 


Columbia, 


32 


8.34 


15.00 


4.00 


Crawford , 


58 


7.74 


14.50 


4.00 


Cumberland, 


.33 


4.72 


15.00 


2.00 


Dauphin, 


39 


5.76 


12.00 


2.00 


Delaware, 


43 


5.70 


10.00 


2.00 


Elk, 


13 


5.76 


10.00 


2.00 



County . 

Erie, 

Fayette, 

Forest, 

Franklin, 

Fulton, 

Greene , 

Huntingdon, 

Indiana , 

Jefferson, 

Juniata, 

Lackawanna, 

Lancaster, 

Lawrence, 

Lebanon, 

Lehigh, 

Luzerne, 

Lycoming, 

McKean, 

Mercer, 

Mifflin, 

Monroe, 

Montgomery, 
Montour, 

Northampton, 

Northumberland , 

Perry, 

Pike, 

Potter, 

Schuylkill, 

Snyder ,- 

Somerset, 

Sullivan, 

Susquehanna, 

Tioga, 

Union, 

Venango, 

Warren, 

Washington, 

Wayne, 

Westmoreland, 

Wyoming, 

York, 



Districts . 
37 
42 
9 

19 
12 
27 
47 
42 
34 
17 
40 
61 
26 
22 
25 
74 
52 
22 
47 
14 
19 
63 
11 
39 
37 
30 
12 
30 
67 
17 
45 
13 
42 
39 
15 
31 
31 
67 
30 
64 
23 
70 





Highest. 


Lowest. 


6.54 


11.00 


3.00 


7.16 


14.00 


1.00 


14.28 


25.00 


4.00 


3.79 


6.50 


2.50 


8.00 


13.00 


5.00 


3.62 


10.00 


1.00 


10.73 


25.00 


5.00 


8.28 


15.00 


4.00 


9.38 


20.00 


5.00 


7.29 


13.00 


4.00 


12.07 


25.00 


2.50 


3.93 


10.00 


2.00 


6.34 


17.00 


2.00 


3.81 


6.00 


1.00 


4.72 


9.00 


2.00 


7.46 


17.00 


2.00 


11.60 


10.08 


4.00 


10.18 


14.00 


4.00 


5.23 


11.00 


2.00 


5.50 


8.50 


3.00 


7.26 


18.00 


3.00 


4.80 


8.00 


2.50 


5.54 


9.00 


3.00 


5.66 


11.00 


1.00 


6.05 


12.00 


1.00 


5.90 


10.00 


2.00 


9.33 


13.00 


6.00 


10.80 


25.00 


3.00 


9.82 


25.00 


3.00 


6.64 


11.00 


4.50 


8.55 


13.00 


5.00 


12.07 


13.00 


3.00 


14.40 


25.00 


6.00 


7.59 


13.00 


4.00 


4.40 


6.00 


2.50 


7.51 


13.00 


4.00 


9.54 


14.00 


5.00 


5.45 


18.00 


1.00 


7.96 


18.00 


4.00 


6.06 


15.00 


1.25 


10.60 


19.00 


5.00 


4.98 


14.00 


1.60 


how:— 
Hig 


hest 10.00 


Lowest 1.00 




25.00 


•" 2.50 



A few examples taken from this list show: 

Greene County, Average 3.62 

Lackawanna county, " 12.07 

An examination shows great variations. This condition ex- 
ists throughout the larger part of the State and the higher 
rates affect a greater number of people than the lower ones. 
One-fourth of the State has a taxation rate of 10 to 25 mills. 
If we assume 5 mills as a fair rate, then there are only 995 
districts out of 2534 that have it in this State. That these 
rates may be due to under valuation does not minimize the 
excessive burden imposed upon the rural population. 

In Philadelphia the larger portion of its population, having 
the benefits of primary, secondary, collegiate and vocational 



8 

schools, pays no school tax whatever unless the people are 
owners of real estate. 

Outside of Philadelphia, every labor, either citizen or for- 
eigner, pays fl.OO per capita and the millage tax on his prop- 
erty. The greater number of people in the Commonwealth do 
not own any real estate. 

From the census of 1900 one-fifth of the population of tlie 
State reside in Philadelphia ; the larger portion of these pays 
no tax for educational purposes, while those outside of Phila- 
delphia must pay. The State in its division of appropriation 
is giving Philadelphia over |900,000 to repay what the city 
does not collect. 

Personally we have not much sympathy with the argument, 
for in our estimation Philadelphia is right. All our property 
owners should look after the school tax the same as an in- 
surance premium. Still it leaves the argument that the country 
districts are burdened more greatly than Philadelphia. 

APPROPRIATIONS. 

These have been liberal. In 1835 it was |75,000 and grad- 
ually increased to |1,000,000 in 1874 ; it was |5,000,000 in 1891 
and continued to be that until 1907 when it was made |7,500,- 
000 where it remains. 

From 1835 to 1913 the State has given to its schools |163,- 
286,211.00. While the distribution of this large sum is of great 
benefit and under the new School Code is giving more equitable 
results than under the old system, yet those who study the 
financial and legislative history of the past cannot but be 
doubtful and anxious regarding this form of revenue to the 
school system. 

Tlie absence of any obligation upon the Legislature to appro- 
priate more than $1,000,000, the amount prescribed by the Con- 
stitution, ojjens the door to a fear that it may not be main- 
tained when the revenues of the State may be impaired or when 
other demands may become strong for public improvements. 

The Legislature has never made an appropriation to carry 
out the provisions of the Code for Assistants to the County 
Superintendents, — one of the most important wants of the 



rural districts. Tlie absence of a permanent and regular form 
of revenue and the strain to maintain the present appropria- 
tion bars the school system from the advances it should make. 
New systems cannot be adopted if they are affected adversely 
at every meeting of the Legislature. 

Vocational training was adopted by the last Legislature car- 
rying with it a special appropriation. It will be impossible 
to introduce this where it does not exist and where it is 
needed to educate the children so that they will remain at 
home and develop country life, because financial conditions 
will prevent. Therefore, this legislation will inure to the 
benefit of the city schools alone. 

When it is shown that in the entire State there are only 
877 secondary schools out of 3,152, it demonstrates that the 
country mstricts cannot support secondary education, let 
alone vocational. The appropriation for vocational schools 
covers only teaching. This form of education requires larger 
buildings, better equipment and a delay of two or three years 
before any reimbursement is possible. 

The causes, then, for this seeming indifference are, we think, 
purely economic. That the country districts are impatient 
for a higher and broader education is clearly shown by the 
adoption of the new Code which went into operation with 
greater unanimity and heartier support than any other legis- 
lation in the past generation. That the people of the Com- 
monwealth are in sympathy with progressive movements in 
education and will heartily support them is clearly indicated 
by the manner in which the School Code has been approved. 

The question before us is: — "Shall we stand still and wait 
until the districts grow up financially or can we devise some 
system by w^hich present needs and demands may be met?" 
We think that this is possible, tho the proposition we make is 
a radical one. Baldly stated, it is that the State should as- 
sume the entire cost of teaching and pay teachers directly out 
of state revenues. This, of course, is more than the State can 
afford from its present revenues and to enable it to do so 
we propose a direct tax to augment what is now known as the 
State and County tax sufficiently to relieve both taxpayer and 
State from what they are now paying. 



10 

To explain more fully, let me present some figures. 

From the report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction 
for 1012 we find the entire cost of teaching in the State, includ- 
ing Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, was for year 1911 — 12 

121,137,685.37 
From the Secretary of Internal Aff'airs we 
find that the total assessable value of real 
estate taxable for county purposes was $4,838,055,467.00 

A tax of 5 mills would amount to 24,190,277.33 

or an excess of 3,052,591.66 

This, of course, would not be approved by 
the people. 

If we take the total cost of teaching as 
given $21,137,685.37 

•Deduct from it the appropriation as dis- 
tributed 6,768,000.00 

Amount to be raised b}^ direct tax of 3 
mills 114,368,685.37 

14,514,166.00 



Surplus 145,480.37 

Carrying out this proposition would leave the powers of di- 
rectors as they are at present and not infringe on them in any 
way. They would elect their own teachers but the State would 
pay them. They would be required to levy a tax as at present 
for debt and interest, maintenance of buildings, equipment of 
new schools and supplies of all kinds; this would be a local 
tax and controlled by the people. 

Wliat this additional expenditure would amount to we have 
not been able to learn from any of the reports. The people freed 
from the heaviest expense would gladly assume the operating 
charges; with debts funded, the interest and sinking fund 
charges would be low. 

The amounts given in the report show a charge for — 
Supplies 11,413,559.89 

Text books 889,392.47 

Secretaries 270,000.00 



12,573,152.36 



11 

The unknown element is the indebtedness of the school sys- 
tem of the State and its fixed charges. Even with the imper- 
fect figures, it can easily be calculated that a direct tax of 3 
mills, plus the local tax, would be infinitely less than the 90 per 
cent, that the districts are now paying. The tax would be uni- 
form throughout the whole state and at one place the poorest 
district on a parity with the richest. At present we have 2534 
taxing districts. Collectors' fees in these districts are not 
known, but allowing 3 per cent, a low price, the cost for collect- 
ing would be 1634,130.56, a large proportion of which would 
be saved. A system of this kind would at once transform the 
school system and place it upon a permanent foundation, to 
expand as the people wanted. 



CONCLUSIONS. 

1. It would make teaching a remunerative profession and 
the teacher an employee of the State. Salaries would be fixed 
throughout the State by classification based upon merit and 
service, no matter where the school might be. 

2. The school term would be uniform. 

3. It would in the course of a few years eliminate the local 
and unprofessional teacher now so prevalent in our schools; 
it would make it possible to have better prepared teachers in 
every school. Teaching is not a profession at present; the 
large proportion of teachers, especially in the country districts, 
being engaged in the work as a stepping stone to some other 
avocation in life. 

4. It would leave the control in the hands of the Legisla- 
ture, with the amount of appropriation fixed ; the tax rate upon 
the people would be determined by presenting to the Legisla- 
ture the budget of expense as in any other state department. 

6. It opens the door to a reduction of the appropriation by 
increasing the direct tax and vice versa. 

The voice of the people through their representatives would 
govern and control. The people freed from the present burden- 
some taxation could and would approve any taxation after 
they have felt the educational privileges that are bound to 



12 

come. It would relieve the present inequalities. It would give 
the same educational privileges throughout the state. 

Educationally, socially, economically and politically it af- 
fords a great opportunity. Such a measure would appeal to 
men of every party and of every section. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




^ 021 313 994 •]#! 



